- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the appellate order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner Jodhpur, dated 4. 3. 55 in case relating to entries in record of rights.
(2.) WE have heared the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The circumstances that give rise to this appeal are that on 29. 4. 53 Shri Soor Singh applied before the Settlement Officer, Pali, impleading Rawat Mukna and Lala etc. as opposite party with the allegations that will in dispute has been wrongly entered in the name of the opposite party, that the Thikana had been in possession of she same and hence the entries be corrected accordingly. A certified copy of a judgment of the S. D. M. Sojat, in a case under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. was produced along with this application. There is nothing on the record to show that Rawat Mukan etc. or any of them were ever informed of this application. However, on 15. 3. 54 the Record Officer passed an order to the effect that as the S. D. O. has taken the decision about 1/2 portion of the will hence the whole of it be entered in the name of Sajjan Singh, Chhutbhai. Mukan and Panna went up in appeal before the Addition Settlement Commissioner against this decision. It was contended on their behalf that the proceedings by the Record Officer were caried out entirely at their back, that the case was triable by the Asstt. Record Officer in accordance with item 5, Group F, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act and that the Settlement Officer (Record Officer) had no jurisdiction to decide the same. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner held that the proceedings were not conducted properly and as the matter lay within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Record Officer, the decision of the Record Officer was invalid. Instead of carrying this decision to its logical sequence, the learned Additional Commissioner directed that the entries which stood prior to correction should remain in fact. We have no hesitation in observing that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner failed to appreciate the case on a right perspective. It is true that item 5 mentioned above, authorises an Assistant Record Officer to decide a dispute regarding entries in the record of rights but the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner omitted to look into the provisions contained in sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. Clauses IV and V lay down that a Record Officer shall have all the powers of an Assistant Record Officer and a Settlement Officer shall have all the powers of an Assistant Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer was a Record Officer as will. Hence the ground on which the decision has been held invalid does not stand scrutiny. But in view of the fact that the procedure adopted by the Settlement Officer was absolutely devoid of all legality, it is essential that the case ought to be tried afresh in a proper manner. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that the party against whom a decision is going to be made should be served with a notice to appear in the court and be allowed an opportunity to have his say in the matter. Leaving aside this the procedure for dealing with such application is provided in the Act itself. As pointed out above, the names of Mukan etc. were ordered to be removed without giving them any chance of hearing. We would, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the order of the lower courts and remand the case to the court of the Assistant Record Officer concerned with the direction that it be tried and decided afresh in the light of the observations made above. .;